the tax payers will bail us out if this idea bombs

i say we have more government and much much bigger. We have to solve the crisis.

Tongue in cheek. Very good!

Love at first sight.

cc,, You never fail to disappoint.

:)

The two biggest losers.

cc,, You never fail to disappoint

I hereby dis-appoint both of you. Begone.

So small positions in a $33 billion fund can't be in derivatives?

A former strategist for LTCM? Funny.

And citadel and the prop trading desks have performed how?

I agree with the concept entirely but this is riddled with bad logic.

Work on your sources and material, rs.

hey finallyjoy, why no reference to the regime?

The regime's leader, tomorrow evening will deliever quite a propaganda show.(j. Goebbels would be proud)

So the point of the post is what? That the government should further regulate how pension plans can invest their money? Or that this mgmt team screwed up by selection PIMCO or JPMorgan or whoever put them into derivatives?

I'm sure there is an ERISA bulletin board somewhere worthy of this discussion (and I use that word generously).

We should move public employees over to a 401-k style pension plan. Agressive investment return assumptions allow unions and politicians to under-state the cost to the public in offering these generous plans that are no longer parto of the private economy.

So you believe that asset allocation decisions would become more conservative if the funds were invested in a 401k vs a pension?

The tax payer would not get shafted. Anyone who wants the sure thing, should check off a "put all my money in low yielding treasuries" box. You want higher returns, it comes with risk.. The current situation is HEADS UNION RETIREE WINS, TAILS U.S. TAX PAYER LOSES.

So you are commending this pension plan for following an aggressive investment strategy?

Clearly not..

Everything with the regime is unprecedented and historical and the actions will fundamentally change things. And. all the lemmings are starting to use the words. The leader of the regime's favorite words. Sacrifice, fair share, shared sacrifice, service, unprecedented, historical. fundamentally.

Shut up Julia.

cc,, You never fail to disappoint

So..other than the two resident whack jobs here, who have you managed to convince?

We should all sacrifice for our fellowman. Sacrifice Sacrifice Sacrifice Just let the regime be in charge.

But...who have you convinced?

'Socialism is another form of slavery' Tocqueville

we should privatize social security too--thank god we dodged that effing bullet

regulate the pension plans so their managers arent bought off by wall street

Shut up Julia.

we should privatize social security too--thank god we dodged that effing bullet

As if social security was solvent.... Every baby boomer knows this is not money that will be there when they retire. Bernie Madoff had a lot to learn about Ponzi schemes.

Social Security and Medicare are Madoff anCo. except much much larger.

It's not illegal when the gov't does it...

columbiacounty Shut up Julia.But...who have you convinced?So..other than the two resident whack jobs here, who have you managed to convince?Shut up Julia.The two biggest losers.Love at first sight. The eloquence contribution from the welfare state.

If everybody knows the money won't be there, that means that there is no fraud and thus no ponzi scheme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

"if everybody knows the money won't be there, that means that there is no fraud and thus no ponzi scheme." But most of your fellow citizens are "economically challenged" or brain dead. Plus the old people don't care because they figure they will be dead when it blows up.

And the welfare state recipients always think their mommy and daddy will somehow keep writing the checks.

I'll rephrase, Everyone should know. Not everyone does. it's a ponzi scheme. The government would do teh everyone under 50 a huge favor by cashing out now and transferring what money there is into an IRA. We'd be far better off investing in J&J, Coke & KMB than trusting a worthless gov't pledge.

Wow, great logic malthus, if bernie had only told us it was a ponzie scheme he would have gotten off.

> we should privatize social security too--thank god we dodged that effing bullet

Only to get hit by the grenade. Social Security is going BUST.

The procees of social security get invested in treasury bonds, which further's the accounting gimmick.

"The government would do teh everyone under 50 a huge favor by cashing out now and transferring what money there is into an IRA. We'd be far better off investing in J&J, Coke & KMB than trusting a worthless gov't pledge."

... tell that to all the pensioners in Chile who "benefitted" from that kind of privatization, and are all now in the poorhouse.

The government pledge is by no means worthless. They'll pay up. By which I mean YOU'LL pay up. So relax and try to enjoy your life.

"They'll pay up. By which I mean YOU'LL pay up. So relax and try to enjoy your life."And the welfare state recipients always think their mommy and daddy will somehow keep writing the checks. Rest my case!

The government has already raised the retirement age, which according to Hartman is a breach of contract. They'll probably do this again. They've already changed the CPI calculation to lower future payments. Not too many tricks left to keep this puppy going. I guess we could debase the currency..

finallyjoy
27 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
And the welfare state recipients always think their mommy and daddy will somehow keep writing the checks. the liberals are soooo predictable.

>The government pledge is by no means worthless.
Could be worthless, SSN is a full of IOUs

>They'll pay up. By which I mean YOU'LL pay up. So relax and try to enjoy your life.
Or not, the crazy progressive tax wont fly so it would mean cuts of all benefits including mortgage interest deductions. RE will dump big time, woohoo.

>the liberals are soooo predictable.
don't mix liberals in, liberals are about freedom - not fiscal responsibilities

"liberals are about freedom" Not anymore.

"Wow, great logic malthus, if bernie had only told us it was a ponzie scheme he would have gotten off."

That's correct. If you don't lie or hide info, there is no fraud. It's a pretty simple concept actually.

So Julia, let me make sure I have it straight.

If you were magically made president of the united states, oops I meant leader of the regime you would

Abolish Medicare
Abolish social security
Eliminate all other government programs except those few vital to national defense

Did I get that right?

Don't mess with alan's handouts, or ask him to actually work for what he gets. How dare you.

So we have a choice not to pay into Social Security? When did that change malthus?

It's a ponzi scheme.

The liberals are about control and the status quo. Is universal heath care freedom? Is taxing you to death about freedom? Is political correctness about freedom? Is that congressmen from North Carolina about freedom? Is the welfare state about freedom? Is socialism about freedom?

So Julia, let me make sure I have it straight.

If you were magically made president of the united states, oops I meant leader of the regime you would

Abolish Medicare
Abolish social security
Eliminate all other government programs except those few vital to national defense

Did I get that right? YES

>The government pledge is by no means worthless.

yes it is. the pledge is to pay back to those who pay in. people who pay in today will not get a penny back regardless of their means.

>The liberals are about control and the status quo.

Uh that's conservatism...

Hey darkbird Is socialism about freedom?

"So we have a choice not to pay into Social Security? When did that change malthus?"

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm the one pointing out that it is a stupid analogy. Glad you agree with me.

Julia, as the leader of the regime you wouldn't have the unilateral power to achieve your goals. Would you attempt to forcefully disband congress? If so, what force would you use?

Are you interested in engaging in the real world?

"Don't mess with alan's handouts, or ask him to actually work for what he gets. How dare you."

LICcomm, maybe Daddy already worked for what I get, and maybe Daddy already paid taxes on it. I get my full handout, LICcomm.

You, on the other hand, LICcomm, have to live on a brownfield. That makes you little more than a brownfieldworker, LICcomm ... not to sound racist or nothin.

Let's start with the NTSB and the FAA. Who needs those guys? Let the market determine who can make it off the runway first and who gets on a plane.

If i had the constitutional power, i would abolish all transfer payments and the income tax. The way the country was founded.

Would you repeal your own ability to vote as well?

But you do understand that the leader of the regime does not have that power?

How can you reconcile your love of the founding fathers and the constitution with your desire to openly flaunt it?

How is that not as hypocritical as everything you accuse me and my fellow citizens of?

This regime is keeping their boots on the throat of the American people. Is that freedom darhbird?

If i had the constitutional power, i would abolish all transfer payments and the income tax. The way the country was founded. Did you read this cc. Wake up!

But as leader of the regime, you wouldn't have the constitutional power.

Is the constitution a joke to you?

I thought libertarians believed in a strict reading of the constitution? Is that not correct?

As you know, Julia the constitution is very clear about separation of powers.

If I had the constitutional power, I would only allow all laws and services that suit julialg's whimsy, and abolish all taxes that she might ever have to pay (or wishes she might ever have to pay, as it were).

Because it's all-about-julialg day. week. No, no month, year, no life.

But unfortunately, none of us including the current leader of the regime has anywhere near that amount of power.

So, Julia, what to do?

Abolish the constitution in order to return to a strict interpretation of it?

That seems to be not only tough sell but the height of hypocrisy.

You can't be that dumb cc.

Liberians believe that the Constitution is unconstitutional.

> Uh that's conservatism...

And today's liberals are fiscal conservatives...

If enough of your fellow citizens weren't parasites, they would elect Senators and congressmen who would uphold the constitution . It would be great for freedom, but bad for socialists.

> That's correct. If you don't lie or hide info, there is no fraud. It's a pretty simple concept
> actually.

No, pyramid schemes are illegal no matter how much you tell.

Pyramid schemes and ponzi schemes are different things. Don't confuse them any further SWE.

they are similar. Social security is a ponzi. Pyrmiad is more like a franchise that gets people to dupe other people

Julia..that is the fatal flaw in your argument. People have precisely the government that they want. Unless you are advocating a dictatorship, there is no chance of any of your ideas (being generous there I would say) coming to pass. So, if you actually love freedom as much as you profess, time for you to pull the stick out of your ass.

>And today's liberals are fiscal conservatives...

Neither reps or dems are, they're fiscal whores.

If they're whores, we're all the johns?

>Hey darkbird Is socialism about freedom?

Socialism has nothing to do with liberals.

CC We are unfortunately slip sliding into dictatorship. The government has enormous power and the people like it. The people are slowly being bought off one sellout after the next. Social security. Medicare, food stamps, and hundreds of transfer payment programs. Stop government transfer payment for one day and the country will implode. PATHETIC.

darkbird How old are you 12?

Finally, I don't think we're falling into dictatorship. What we have is a group in control of gov't who feel wealth is distributed unfairly and they aim to correct that. They also feel government is the solution to our problems. On the first account they are dealing with wealth in the wrong way, They should be maximizing opportunity and not outcome. With regards to the second, they will only create so much red-tape that our economy will grow more slowly or worse negatively.

darkbird Read The road to serfdom, Hayek number 1 on Amazon best sellers list, If you have the courage and intelligence .Then let me know about liberals and socialism.

> Pyramid schemes and ponzi schemes are different things. Don't confuse them any further SWE

A ponzi scheme with full transparency (as noted in the claim) is... simply... a pyramid scheme.

Next thing you're going to call Fascism a liberal ideology. Most of the political movements are so interwoven into each other, its hard to make clear cuts. Yes, some of liberal movements evolved into socialism leaning ones, and some are not.

The basic idea that all liberals are more less believe (copy & paste of wiki)

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom"[1]) is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality.[2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, free trade, secularism, and the market economy.

That's exactly how US was founded.

I agree with your definition of liberalism in general.. And i consider myself a liberal in the true meaning of the word."(of freedom"). But today's liberal or progressives believes in a very powerful federal government. Big powerful centeralized governments always threaten the individual and private property rights. Just look at Washington today. There are many so called liberals who are advocating socialism. We are living in very dangerous times with dictatorial type politicians and a populist public.

I'd prefer one federal government vs 54ish governments (included territories). It's easier to manage one brigade of thieves then 54.

And it's in human nature to steal if they can.

Libertarians accept government, but have a much narrower definition than liberals of it's role. Sorry folks, lots of injustice in the world. And big government doesn't solve it. All you wind up doing is trading one devil for another.

I see government as a provider of required common utilities, like roads and defense and basic education.

Beyond that, I see it as the referee, that needs to keep things fair and straight. But not as a provider or a decider of outcomes. That seems to be the point anti-capitalists miss, particularly the strawmen ones who think that means businesses can do whatever they want.

of course not... governments need to enforce and ensure free markets. Fair free markets take work. But you want the work in the protecting the market, not changing its outcomes.

somewhereelse Well said. darkbird. You avoid all the main points of liberals=socialist and talk about human nature and stealing. I don't agree with that.

But Julia

Swe's concept would require taxation. I thought that was verboten in the world according to Julia?

Can we agree that among others we would like the FDA and the FAA to survive the new regime of julia's?

I must admit that despite all of your (julia's) admonishments to wake up that i am still unclear about how any of this happens as long as the constitution is in force.

cc You can have taxes but no income tax. You know that, don't play stupid.

fda no. I referance friedman's answer to why no fda.

"It's not illegal when the gov't does it..."

yep, but it's as unsustainable and unaffordable as if it were done by the private sector. the gov cannot print its way out of a tiny fraction of SS/Medicare/public pension mess.

the best strategy for a young family is not rely on the gov at neither level (not being a public employee, take for granted SS and Medicare collapse soon) and be as mobile as possible towards a non-union state (?). have no long positions on states with the biggest public pension issues (not only do not buy munis but do not own fixed taxable property like housing nor land either).

any other survivalist ideas? i am all ears!!! the ideal will be to profit as much as possible from the mess though, though i have no ideas for how to do that well.

22 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse I must admit that despite all of your (julia's) admonishments to wake up that i am still unclear about how any of this happens as long as the constitution is in force. CC Think America prior 1913. Did the constitution exist then?

finallyjoy: I must say that you are rather boring. And, rather loose with your logic. And repetitive. Loose and repetitive. And repetitive.

apt23 Who really cares what you think.

Julia. Not a good way to get people on your side.

Back to business.

Are we going to keep the FAA?

Am not up to speed on uncle mil tie's position about the FDA. Can you summarize? Thanks.

Well said Somewhere.

There are some services government must provide. The goal of laws should be to maintain a level playing field, uphold contracts and to make sure two parties cannot engage in an activity that hurts a third party. Excessive government reduces freedom.